Should the ICC pay International Cricketers?

With plenty of the non-Big 3 nations struggling financially, and the rise of several lucrative T20 leagues, international cricketers for the first time have the choice between playing for their country or playing for their wallets.

While every young cricketer dreams of one day playing for their country, the inability of some of these countries to pay their cricketers a decent salary (or indeed, even pay them at all), along with the presence dysfunctional, inept or corrupt administrators, may be enough to push some of these young players into pursuing a career being a T20 mercenary for hire.

We have already seen Chris Gayle give up on the West Indies for several reasons, with plenty of very talented cricketers having followed suit, while even the likes of Sanga and Mahela retired with a few years of cricket left in them - partly to fill their wallets playing in various leagues around the world, and partly out of frustration from having to deal with the SLCB.

ABDV's recent comments about the challenges faced by cricketers having to pick between demanding international schedules and earning a quick buck T20 has been quite concerning. Surely this shouldn't be a choice to begin with right? Surely it's International cricket first, everything else second?

But that's not the reality we face.

So the question here is, should the ICC (AKA the Big 3) be stepping up and making sure that international cricketers all around the world earn a good salary, regardless of which country they play for?

The Pros of this are obvious. Redistributing funds in order to ensure the best talent in the world is able to play Test cricket is a big step towards ensuring the format remains healthy and competitive. It is the pinnacle of the sport, and thus should be played by the very best cricketers available to each nation.

On the other hand, the ICC footing the bill means putting cash in the hands of corrupt, inept boards such as the SLCB, WICB and ZCB. The struggles faced by cricketers of these countries is in no small part down to terrible leadership and management from their cricketing boards. By stepping in to bail them out, we are essentially absolving them of the consequences of their poor leadership. Wouldn't that money be better spent on helping non-Test nations that are well run (see Ireland) work towards Test status?

It needs to be like rugby - defined windows for domestic T20 competitions, defined windows for international matches. This would take the conflict away as T20s and international matches wouldn't be played at the same time.

But it would be funny to see India/Aus/Eng break away from rest of the world because ICC limited their profits, then the rest of world cricket collapsing financially and all the players ending up with exponentially less money as a result

I don't this is such a grandslam of an idea tho. There are some pretty glaring flaws with it.

The first being what I said in the OP - incompetent boards such the WICB and SLCB won't suffer consequences of their mismanagement. Both sides have seen talent stop playing for them due to financial reasons. If the players were being paid by the ICC, they would continue to benefit from their presence despite terrible leadership. Zimbabwe cricket would still be strong despite Mugabe running it into the ground and using it to leach funds for himself. Should the ICC be undertaking policies that, if not encourage, certainly don't deter such behaviour?

Secondly, attempts to commercialize the game within a country tends to lead to more professional, more transparent, more meritocratic systems. It's in a country's best interest if their own cricket board gets their house in order. Being able to pay players more hinges on earning more, and earning more requires creating an attractive product that is well managed. If cricket boards aren't required to pay their players, they lose an incentive to develop and spread the game within their country. The ICC picking up the tab may lead to healthier Test cricket in the short run, but may hinder cricket's growth in the long run.

The NatWest T20 Blast, the IPL, and the Big Bash have all been incredibly successful and lucrative in Eng, India and Aus. Pulling 80,000 to a domestic match is unreal.

What needs to happen is more co-ordination. The money now (seems to be) in domestic T20 and when Eng/Aus/India play against each other.

The ICC needs to:

- play a role in scheduling so that international test cricket never clashes with the big T20 domestic comps, so that players from poorer nations can earn their cash in other nations
- somehow legislate that players who want to play in the domestic comps should also make themselves avail for tests for their nations
- do away with drawn out 50 over series
- make test series shorter in duration, 2 tests back to back is plenty when the teams playing each other aren't two of Aus/Ind/Eng (and perhaps SA)
- phase out 50 over cricket over the next 15 years. It saddens me because I like the format, but I just don't think there's room

The NatWest T20 Blast, the IPL, and the Big Bash have all been incredibly successful and lucrative in Eng, India and Aus. Pulling 80,000 to a domestic match is unreal.

What needs to happen is more co-ordination. The money now (seems to be) in domestic T20 and when Eng/Aus/India play against each other.

The ICC needs to:

- play a role in scheduling so that international test cricket never clashes with the big T20 domestic comps, so that players from poorer nations can earn their cash in other nations
- somehow legislate that players who want to play in the domestic comps should also make themselves avail for tests for their nations
- do away with drawn out 50 over series
- make test series shorter in duration, 2 tests back to back is plenty when the teams playing each other aren't two of Aus/Ind/Eng (and perhaps SA)
- phase out 50 over cricket over the next 15 years. It saddens me because I like the format, but I just don't think there's room

You're joking right? The World Cup is one of the world's most watched sporting competitions. Theres no way the 50 over format goes anywhere.

- phase out 50 over cricket over the next 15 years. It saddens me because I like the format, but I just don't think there's room

I don't think there's room for domestic 50 over matches. There's definitely room for international ones. On the other hand, I don't know if there's room for international T20s. People won't pay to see a domestic 50 over game but they'll pay to see a domestic T20. If they will pay to see an international 50 over game, why provide less of a product (and arguably one of a lower quality) by offering international T20s?

I had an idea when reading the interview with the CEO of Hong Kong cricket published on Cricinfo today. Why doesn't the BCCI invite 4-8 Associate teams over for warm ups against IPL teams before the IPL actually starts? It will be great exposure for these Associate teams to play in the cauldron of Indian cricket and it serves as a great talent scouting opportunity as well. An alternative is to schedule these matches in the middle of the IPL (over a weekend), where the main players can be given some much needed time off, and the IPL teams can use this as an opportunity to play their other players / young players and see if any of them should be fast-tracked to the senior team.

It's a bit far-fetched, but I only see positives for everyone in this.